Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 14, 2018 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
roth. hasti >> clerk: okay. good evening, and welcome to the -- [ gavel ]. >> clerk: it's fine. i'm sorry. i'm jumping the gun here. good evening and welcome to the july 11 -- well, i think gary, you said they're ready, right? yeah, they're ready. good evening, for the third time and welcome to the july 11, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of apaelz. board president frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. to my left is deputy city
12:01 pm
attorney brad rossy who will provide the board with any needed legal assistance. i am julie quintata, the executive director. we expect to see scott sanchez, zoning administrator, representing the planning department and planning commission, joseph duffy, senior building inspector, representing the department of building inspection, amanda higgins and brent cohen from the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping, and chris buck, urban forester, san francisco department of urban forestry. the board requests that you silence aor turnoff all phones and electronic devices. we request that conversations are held in the hallway. people affiliated with the
12:02 pm
parties must include their comment within the seven or three-minute periods. memory burrs of the public who are not afillated with the public have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and statements. if you have questions about requesting a hoe hearing, board staff or schedules, please call or speak to board staff after the meeting, orstop by the office. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv, and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. d.v.d.'s for purchase of this program are available from sfgov tv.
12:03 pm
now we will swear or affirm any member of the public who wish to testify. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand and stay "i do" after you have been sworn or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. okay. president fung and members of the commission, we have two how's keeping items. -- housekeeping items. this is item number 6. leslie and barry will, and department of planning inspection. we don't have mr. duffy here. we'll just move onto item number eight as a housekeeping
12:04 pm
item. this is appeal 18-051, schiff technologies versus the zoning administrator, subject address is 2336 market street, protesting the issuance on march 28, 2018 of a notice of violation and penalty decision. alleging violation of planning code section 764 for the unauthorized operation of a general store at the subject properties. the parties are requesting a continuance to august 8. [inaudible] >> clerk: you will have an opportunity. first public comment will be open. >> so moved. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from president fung to continue that to august 8. is there any public comment on that motion? if you can identify yourself for the record, please. >> david troop from the duboce
12:05 pm
triangle neighborhood association. this is the second continuance on this item. this is a situation where the appellant is illegally using retail space as office space because it's cheaper than renting office space, and they're just dragging this out as long as possible. i've come tonight. we have other members from the community that are on their way because this was on the agenda. it was continued once. we understood it was going to be heard tonight, and this is just not right that somebody can keep dragging this out when they know they're going to lose this appeal. they have no grounds for appeal, really, they're just dragging it out so they can continue to use their cheap office space and damage our retail corridor. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners, daniel bergerac.
12:06 pm
i represent the over 300 merchants of the castro and market neighborhood. i have to agree with my friend here, david, regarding this continuance over and over again. we need to get some resolution to this, please. thank you. >> is there any other public comment? okay. >> president fong: the zoning administrator perhaps wants to comment on the schedule. >> thank you, president fong, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. so we do believe this is a violation. we believe this has been acknowledged by the applicant and they will be vacating the space at the end of the month. we don't anticipate the need to have a hearing on august 8 because by that time they will have violated the space and the violation -- vacated the space and the violation will have been abated. >> president fong: that's at the end of this month?
12:07 pm
>> that's correct. >> may i ask a question? so would you consider it would be prudent for us to go through the hearing, and if we were to find that -- in the same direction that the issue is going, that if they did not in fact abdicate and leave the space by the end of the month, you have a formal direction from the board of appeals, so the public doesn't have to -- first of all, the public has been inconvenienced. second of all, the public is looking for direction from us, so wouldn't it be more prudent for us to do it today and just give a direction? >> that would be great from our department, and maybe, yeah, the appellant could also withdraw their appeal, which would bring about an end to this. but the board could also take action and upholding the notice of violation with the direction that they vacate the premises
12:08 pm
by the end of the month. >> thank you for your feedback. >> clerk: okay. this is the other party, the -- [inaudible] >> clerk: yes, please. >> president fong: let's -- what's before us is only the continuance, okay? >> hi. good afternoon, kayla sherman presser, the director for legal ship technology. we are the appellant here. i do want to comment on some of the statements made by the public. we do contest the zoning administrator's decision? with respect to the issue that's present today, which is just the continuance, i am the only attorney at the company. i was on vacation previously, and so this was an agreement that we had with the zoning administrator to continue, at which point we will withdraw
12:09 pm
our appeal because we are vacating the space, not because we acknowledge the appeal, but because we'll have moved. >> clerk: thank you. so we have a motion from president fong to continue this until august 8. on that motion -- >> president fong: is there any further discussion? >> yeah, i -- i just -- i think we should go through the process today, give them a clearer sense of where the submission is going, and there's no problem since the appellant's already said they're moving out, then they won't have any problem moving out, and we've already told them they're going to have to move out because they're in violation. >> president fong: well, that has to be determined. >> there's a motion on the floor already. >> president fong: i'm in disagreement with that. what's before us -- what has
12:10 pm
been brought before us by the two parties in question is they've requested a continuance, and i'm prepared to grant that. >> clerk: okay. any further discussion? okay. so we have a motion from president fong to continue that until august 8, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion passes. the matter's continued to august 8. thank you. so we will go back to our housekeeping item, number six -- item number six. this is appeal number 18-065, 1139 lake street, protesting the issuance on may 8, 2018 to matthew dusanic of an alteration permit to comply with remodel the top floor, remove 44 foot wall, add 44 foot wall, replace existing window on east and west sized
12:11 pm
with fixed a rated glass. this is application number 201703262302. >> president fong: madam director, is there a reason we're bringing them out of order? >> clerk: yes, because they have reached an agreement fong fong agreement? >> clerk: yes. >> yes. good evening, president fong. i'm sarah freeman from zachs, freeman and wilkins. we're very glad we've been able to resolve this with the permit holder. the parties have agreed that on the eastern elevation of the top floor on the penthouse, the permit holder is going to delete the two proposed fire rated windows adjoining the interior stairs, and instead, the permit holder will install a wall with woodsiding at these
12:12 pm
openings. so tonight we're asking for a special conditions permit to be issued to include this change, and we would also like to thank director rosenberg, senior inspector duffy, mr. chan says, and all -- sanchez, and all the board's help in the resolution of this appeal. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. i also have the permit holder here, as well. >> basically, the windows -- the windows are in question are shown on elevation four, on sheet a-7. they're two windows that adjoin a set of stairs. they will also address a notice of violation in this, and those windows are the two windows to the south of the elevation. >> and i'm matt dusanic, and i'm in agreement of the removal
12:13 pm
of the two windows on the south end of the eastern elevation. >> president fong: do you have revised drawings? >> we basically have a verbiage -- >> president fong: that's not my question. do you have revised drawings? >> not yet. we can show just -- submit something and cross off the two windows, come back in a week if that works for you. we're deleting windows, not an elevation. we can just cross it off. >> president fong: we'll need some documentation. we're going to need some documentation. >> we're happy to provide that. >> clerk: okay. so any questions, commissioners? >> president fong: should we allow the building department to monitor this or -- >> so we don't need to continue it. >> president fong: we'll make the action pending your review and concurrence of the revised drawings. >> clerk: okay. i would like to check in to see
12:14 pm
if there's any public comment on this item. >> president fong: yes, of course. >> clerk: did you have something else? >> if the commission would prefer -- commissioners would prefer, i'd be happy to show it on the overhead so we can show which windows are being removed. [inaudible] >> it's these two windows. we'll work with the department on that issue. thank you. >> clerk: so those are the two windows on the south side of the eastern wall. thank you. okay. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, the matter is
12:15 pm
submitted. commissioners? >> president fong: commissioners, any comments? move to grant the appeal contingent upon the removal of the two windows so noted by the director earlier and -- and based upon the concurrence of the building department in reviewing the revision documents. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we have a motion from president fong to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised, so the two windows on the southeastern portion on the eastern wall are removed based on the concurrence of the department of building inspection. on that motion, president -- excuse me. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion passes. >> president fong: okay. >> clerk: thank you.
12:16 pm
okay. so we will now move to item number 1, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. please take a speaker card and lineup against -- is it -- do we have any public comment tonight on any item not on the calendar? okay. [inaudible] cle >> clerk: okay. so we do not have any public comment, so we will move onto item 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> congratulations to our new 45th mayor of san francisco, madam london breed.
12:17 pm
[applause] >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none on that, we will now move onto item number three, the adoption of the minutes. commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the june 14, 2018 meeting. >> president fong: are there any discussion? entertain a motion to accept. >> so moved. >> president fong moves to adopt the minutes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: i'm sorry. is there any public comment on that motion? okay. so back to the vote. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so the minutes are adopted.
12:18 pm
okay. we will now move on to item number four. this is a rehearing request for the subject property at 1599 haight street. the clayton street neighbors, appellant, is requesting a rehearing of appel number 18-045, decided may 23, 2018. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal other the basis that the permit was properly issued. the project is construction of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning protected location. this is permit number 17 wr-0315, and so we will hear first from the requester, mr. roth -- >> richard fau. >> clerk: richard fau.
12:19 pm
okay. >> as we said, we'd like a rehearing on the request -- >> i'm sorry, could you move the mic closer to you. >> oh, okay. >> you can move the mic closer to you, as well. >> we would like a rehearing based on the article 25 and the complaints assessment. i think we need to vet more facts and leave it at that. >> president fong: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is the permit holder here? >> good evening. mckenzie and albritton for the permit holder. so the narrow issue before the board today is whether or not the appellant met the criteria
12:20 pm
for a rehearing. you know what the criteria are, extraordinary cases, preventing manifest injustice, new or different material, facts or circumstances that could have materially affected the outcome of the hearing. as both d.p.w.'s hearing and our briefing shows, they have not met this criteria. by their own admission they're using this as an opportunity to respond to the testimony that was at the may 23 hearing, but as d.p.w. pointed out, all of our information discussed at the hearing was available in the report. so we won't go into the merits, but touching briefly on radio frequency emissions, here, the appellants had requested d.p.w. to take a reading of the ambient r.f. emissions, which d.p.w. did and found that to be less than 2%. and then, e.b.i. are produced reports also -- had produced
12:21 pm
reports also showing that the calculated emissions with the facility would be less than 2%, so we're talking about a fraction of the f.c.c.'s exposure limit. as you know, regulation of radio frequency emissions is regulated by the f.c.c., so if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them, but other than that, we submit. thank you. >> president fong: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. do we have a representative from public works? >> hi. amanda higgins from public works. public works believes we properly issued the permit. we rely on the department of public health to determine a wireless facility meets the public health compliance standards of article 25.
12:22 pm
i'll be here for questions, and we also have representatives from the department of public health here to answer any of your questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on this item? none? okay. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> president fong: commissioners? >> i would move to deny the request on the basis there is neither new information norman fest injustice. >> i -- manifest injustice. >> i agree after reading the brief, as well as the evidence presented at the hearing. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner left side he russ to deny the request on the basis that there's no new information or manifest
12:23 pm
injustice. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that request is denied. we will now move onto item -- item number 5-a and 5-b which shall be heard together. this -- these are appeal numbers -- it has -- 18-060 and 18-061, the union square business improvement district and stanley roth versus san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping, two separate apaelz. subject property is 281 geary street protesting the issuance on april 21, 2018 to san francisco's hometown creamery of a mobile food facility permit, to operate at a location 80 linear feet east of the friday and geary street intersection. this is permit number 17
12:24 pm
mff-0001 for further consideration. on june 20, 2018, the board voted 3-1-1, president fong dissented and commissioner swig was absent. the restriction would address concerns about congestion in the area. lacking the four votes needed to pass, the motion failed. upon a motion by commissioner honda, the board voted by 3-1-1 to continue this matter to allow vice president swig to participate in the vote, so the matter has been submitted and vice president swig, did you have an opportunity to review the video and materials for these appeals? >> commissioner swig: yes, i actually watched the proceedings from home on the night of the event, so i'm -- and i've rereviewed the
12:25 pm
materials. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so commissioners, this matter has been submitted. >> president fong: discussion? >> commissioner swig: my point of view from watching the proceedings is that the discussion got off onto things which are not applicable in the mobile food facility legislation. it is -- it is not about small business, it is not about a minority owned business, it's very clear, the mobile food facility legislation is about serving underserved areas, and union square, that particular corner which is well served, and -- and very congested, is probably the antithesis of about -- the type of neighborhood that should be
12:26 pm
served by a mobile food facility. so you can sense my direction and my vote. >> president fong: i sense the direction, but i guess part of the conditions related to them being limited to what they proposed, which was a relatively small footprint truck as opposed to any size one that can fit, based upon the d.p.w.'s requirements. if the vote is going to go toward an approval of the
12:27 pm
permit, and it only requires two votes for that to occur, then i probably will switch my opposition. >> so i've been on the board for six years now, and it's, i think, my past opinion and votes in regards to food trucks downtown have all been in denial, to be honest. i think that as our vice president said, the -- it's not underserved and there is congestion. at the last hearing, the only way that i would be supportive of the two gentlemen before us is if it was extremely limited to that specific size only, no left, no right, no up or down. other than that, i would not be supportive. and let me add this: what always bothers me -- and i am significantly supportive of
12:28 pm
those two young gentlemen who have put together a marvelous business. i listened to the neighborhood and the support that you get. i know that you're wonderful, ethical entrepreneurs and you're doing a fantastic job, but the law is the law in this case, and the problem lies if we start -- and we come across this on everything. if we start compromising and say well, the size of the bus is only going to be 16 feet, which is shorter than others, and it's only going to be this time, that time, then we as this commission are going to be faced with people asking us to compromise over and over and over. and that's what makes this so difficult. there is -- there was legislation. the legislation clearly was in the defined spirit. the proposer of the legislation, supervisor wiener, who has my greatest respect as well, said especially union square is an example of an area
12:29 pm
that doesn't apply to where a food truck should be. so -- and that's -- that's why i'm so furtive on the subject. it has nothing to do with applauding you guys who have done such a great job building a business and everything around that, it's just this is the law, and i feel that we really have to uphold it. and i was further encouraged that the business improvement district offered you a place in maiden lane, which is not -- which is not a bad offer, and i would probably take them up on it. so it's not like you're shut out. so that's -- i just wanted to complete that -- that loop for myself, and thank you for hearing me on that. >> president fong: do you have a motion? >> commissioner swig: no, i'll let somebody else who was here first do it. and oh, my aching back.
12:30 pm
so it would be a motion to deny the appeal -- >> president fong: well, it wound up to be a struggle. the motion was to grant the appeal and condition the permit on their usage only of what they have proposed as a volkswagen van for their facility there, which, i guess, is a little bit of a compromise with respect to my comments on congestion and other things. >> commissioner swig: and so i would just grant the appeal based on -- deny the appeal that it was -- >> clerk: if you deny the appeal, the permit will issue. if you want to denial the appeal -- >> commissioner swig: no, i don't want the permit issued. >> clerk: you don't want the
12:31 pm
permit issued? >> commissioner swig: no, no. >> president fong: did you want to move to grant the appeal, period? >> commissioner swig: yes. that's exactly what i was saying. i do not want the appeal -- i do not want the permit issued because i do i think that in any -- i do not think that in any way the permit is issued we fly directly in the face of the law as it was intended. >> president fong: so i ask you again, do you have a motion, sir? >> commissioner swig: i guess i just made it. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal on the basis that the location is too congested for a food truck. >> commissioner swig: and also that the area is fully -- is fully served. >> clerk: is the area is fully serve -- and the area is fully served. >> commissioner swig: it is not -- it is -- i want to -- it
12:32 pm
is not an underserved area. >> clerk: the area is not underserved. >> commissioner swig: yes. i want to track according to the legislation. >> clerk: it is not underserved as required by the legislation. so motion to grant appeals and deny the permit on the basis the location is too congested for a food truck and the area is not underserved. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner wilson: what's the motion again? >> clerk: the motion is to grant the appeals and deny the permit on the basis the area is too congested for a mobile food truck and the area is not
12:33 pm
underserved. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so lacking the four votes, that motion fails. do we have another motion? if we don't have another motion, then, the permit will be issued. did you want to -- i understood there was some discussion about putting a special condition. >> yep. i'll make a motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit that the permit holder is to supply dimensions of the vehicle that they're planning to use, and that those
12:34 pm
dimensions be the maximum dimensions for that -- for that permit in perpetuity. >> clerk: and on what basis? >> on the basis -- >> clerk: address concerns about congestion? >> concerns about congestion. >> i'm sorry. i should have raised this before. may i go back to the hours of operation? 6:00 to 11:00 friday and saturday and 11:00 to 11:00 on sunday. is there any thought about shortening the hours on sunday? >> i'm fine with that. do you want to add that? >> i would suggest that they match the hours. she's thinking about restricting them further? >> no, i'm saying that -- my suggestion in response to her question would be to limit the hours to what they are on the other days because on sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 during
12:35 pm
the day, that is a congested street. >> well, i'm quite aware of it. my concern was the lack of delivery vehicles, but because they're not on the weekdays until after 6:00, but if you -- my fellow commissioners have a concern regards to the -- the hours, i am -- i'm open to that. i mean, 'cause really, this'll be the first one that's been issued for this type of permit in -- in that area, and i -- i am extremely concerned that the sidewalk is already congested with the hot dog stand there, and that, you know, on a hot day, and 20 people or 30 people lineup to get ice cream, i think there's going to be a problem. but again, a permit is only issued if there is not a problem, and if somebody complains, there is a problem. but does anyone have any idea on the hours? >> i don't know if i'd limit it
12:36 pm
to six. maybe three on a sunday. >> okay. so you want to add that -- >> 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on sunday. okay. so just to repeat the motion, motion to grant the appeals and issue the permit on the condition that the size of the vehicle under the permit be restricted to the size of the proposed 1978 v.w. vanagon and on the condition that the sunday hours be limited to 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on the basis that the permit was properly issued, and the restriction will address some of the concerns about congestion in the area. on that motion -- >> hold on one second, madam director. our city attorney's giving a -- [inaudible] >> okay. yeah. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call]
12:37 pm
>> clerk: okay. so that motion passes. >> congratulations, guys. >> clerk: thank you. so we will now move onto item number 7, and chris buck from the department of public works said he was going to be here at 5:30. do we want to wait a few minutes? >> why don't we just -- can we go to the last case? >> clerk: well, this is the last case. >> president fong: so let's take a five-minute -- he's here. >> clerk: oh, perfect. >> commissioner swig: mr. buck, you weren't going to get your gold star this evening. just so you know, we're going to write you on the tardy list. >> he's riding his bicycle.
12:38 pm
[inaudible] >> clerk: okay. so we will now move onto item number 7. this is appeal number 18-081, the subject property is 333 golden gate avenue. this is u.c. hastings versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry appeal the issuance of june 20, 2018 of a public works order, denial of a request to remove three street trees with removal to the adjacent subject property. we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> thank you very much. my name is david seward. i am the chief financial officer for u.c. hastings college of law. i really want to thank the board of appeal for taking the time to hear our appeal. i thought it would be best to give some overview of what our
12:39 pm
macroplan is. u.c. hastings is in the middle of developing a new graduate academic village on the site of the law school. we have recently completed our long-range campus plan. this project, 333 golden gate, is the first phase of that plan. the goal is to create a -- a multi-institutional graduate campus partnering with institutions such as ucsf and other bay area schools to really leverage the -- the campus, the city, help improve the neighborhood, and we ask that you consider our appeal for the removal and relocation and replacement of these three trees. this, again, is the first step of the project. this project site is -- oops, 333 golden gate. this site right here next to the 200 mcalester building.
12:40 pm
upon completion of this project, we are going to be addressing a critical citywide need of the development of additional housing. we will be constructing 590 new units of housing at the corner of hyde and mcallister. we are fully entitled. we are in the developer selection process. this 590 units will be occupied jointly by ucsf graduate students and hastings. upon the completion of that project, we shift gears to our rehabilitation of our existing student housing at 100 macalester, the development of almost 1,000 beds that will
12:41 pm
support multiple beds, multiple institutions and will help alleviate some of the pressure on the san francisco housing market. as part of this plan, we have committed considerable resources, partnering with the city to achieve greening and sustainability objectives. to this map, shows various projects we've done over time. phase one was done in 2009. we widened the golden gate avenue sidewalk on the south side, planted ten trees, of which three of the trees that are in question today. in 20 118, we partnered with s francisco c.t.a. in a project that called for sidewalk widening, and safety improvements for the stretch of mcalester at larkin. we achieved significant
12:42 pm
pedestrian safety improvements with the bulb outs and pedestrian level lighting. we're further committed to supporting the neighborhood by the use of the site at 333 golden gate for a period of nine years as a demonstration gardens. it was a community garden that supported the needs of the total neighborhood. we worked with d.p.w. to relocate that garden to mckopp and hub, where i hope it's doing okay. so i just wanted to convey the information to stress the school's objective of pursuing our educational mission. the importance we put on collaborations and partnerships, again, c.t.a., d.p.w., our city partners, and the support that we give the neighborhood, the tenderloin, and its efforts to activate and
12:43 pm
improve the live abili-- liveay of that community, and so with that, i want to hand it off to stacey tasuda. she's with clark construction, and she can give a more granular explanation of what would happen on the denial of this appeal. stacey? >> good evening. thank you for your time. i'm the project executive overseeing this construction project for u.c. hastings. i want to pull up -- currently this is a few months ago an existing picture of what 333 golden gate looked like. our main access to this site is as you can see along 333 golden gate. it is fairly land locked on boyds. we have see -- both sides. our main access, really, is along golden gate. the three trees outlined here are the three trees which are
12:44 pm
in question in the appeal, which as you can see, lineup directly in the middle of the access to the site. in a few months, this is a rendering of what the project site will look like. as you -- it might be a little hard to see with the glare, but you can see a covered walkway for overhead protection for the safety of not only pedestrians and workers, hoist future vault and a.d.a. access necessary to operate the site. with the three trees remaining there along golden gate, which is our main access to the site, you can see the space provided here, which is emergency access space, egress space, that needs to be kept clear in case there's a fire or an accident within the building. the other areas that have been designated that are happened out here, we -- mapped out here, we need to have power
12:45 pm
coordinated to the project via pg&e, and this area has been designated to be the power feed for construction, which is where one of the three trees is currently located. that location and pad has been designated, again by pg&e as far as what their limits and parameters are for us. the second tree also conflicted currently with the access to the hoist, so this ramp and sloping of the ramp to the hoist is due to providing the proper slope in accordance with a.d.a. requirements. and then, the third tree access is our only means of provide any off haul or waste control or management on the project site. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. thank you. >> president fong: you'll have three minutes in rebuttal. >> no problem. thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners.
12:46 pm
chris buck with san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. i hope i didn't keep anyone. little traffic, some activity here today at city hall. it's a hopeful day and exciting time. just wanted to back up and talk broadly a little bit about, you know, probably better than most that the bureau of urban forestry, we really try to emphasize that street trees be viewed as sort of permanent infrastructure. the subject trees are certainly not large, so i don't think we have a contentious, controversial case before you this evening. we really did want to make sure that the applicant did their due diligence in proving that the removal of the trees is really out of necessity and not out of convenience. so at the public works hearing, we did decide that -- to just be consistent with how we've handled similar cases, we would issue the denial.
12:47 pm
we did review their brief, and i find that their brief is very thorough, very technical in nature, really addressed every inch of the space in the public right-of-way, where -- to construct the building, where they need to place it, how they're loading zone on the other side of the frontage would be impacted if they tried to use that as an access point. we also do acknowledge that u.c. hastings has been a friend of the urban forest, so to speak. they've done plenty of voluntary plantings. not just a few months ago preceding this hearing, but over a number of years, and we acknowledge that, as well. regarding possible replacement tree options or conditions for approval, i'm not a big fan of transplanting trees, even ones that aren't that large, and so i appreciate the offer to move these and transplant these existing trees. typically, there's going to be some utilities in the way to
12:48 pm
scoop those out of the ground. where you'd like to place them, there's going to be utilities in the way. i'd really prefer to see a 36 inch box size trees be planted as possible replacement trees. i do know that we've run into trouble with utilities cropping up, so one aim of public works is to work with pg&e and other decision makers when utilities are being placed in the right-of-way, because i don't want to over promise that four replacement trees that there'll be room for that at this front yaj. there's -- frontage. there's currently three, but there's utility poles and other things involved. one of the these would be removal of the trees on the condition that three to four replacement trees be planted, 36 to 48 inch size box trees, pending reasonable review and
12:49 pm
working together to -- if there's room for four trees, great. if there's room for 448 inch box size replacement trees, great, but allowing us the latitude, if it has to be a 36-inch box, to not have to come before you and spend time over that detail. so in summary, we did review their brief in great detail. i do appreciate the time and thought that went into it. we've denied applications even when the trees are relatively this young. of the three trees, one of them has a little bit of a lean in the main trunk, so fast forward two years, it's going to get nicked by vehicles, so we're really talking about two trees, they're established. they've evaded 1r andalism, and -- vandalism, and it takes a lot to establish street trees, but we've got a reasonable proposal in front of
12:50 pm
us, and we don't want to stand in the way of that. so at this point, we'd be, you know, looking favorable to the decision being overturned and just really working out the conditions of replacements, but i would caution against -- i do really appreciate the offer of transplanting those trees. i just -- believe it or not, sometimes the most sustainable trees is just to run trees like that in the chipper and buy new trees. you're going to have to water those trees any way, when you move those. i did go to the site today to check out those three planting sites that you suggested in the appeal. there's issues with some of those. that's why we're not planting a few of those sites. so even if we found sites where we could put those replacement trees elsewhere, those specific sites aren't great. they're in commercial loading zones, so we have some reservations about those sites, as well. but we do appreciate the thoroughness and the detail of their brief, and they're really done everything they can,
12:51 pm
including providing letters of support from various community members, as well. and lastly, we've had very little if any public input related to this. no protests that i recall, so it has been a relatively uncontested case. and that pretty much summarizes our take on this appeal. thank you. >> i've got a question. >> me, too. >> so after going through the brief, and i concur that the brief was really well done, i couldn't understand why the department was against it. if they were going to relocate the current trees and then plant new ones, but as you -- i appreciate your thoroughness, and you've taken the time to go to the site. and that's not a possibility, but if we condition it on that, and they're not able to do it, then the permit would be no good. but you did bring up something that i did not think of, you're saying that the trees that are there, you probably would not be able to plant a tree at the
12:52 pm
current locations. >> i think they'll be able to replant trees. i'd just caution us to not condition that four replacement trees be in that frontage. >> okay. so you're not sure if those four will go back. >> i believe the three will go back. the three can go back. >> you proposed four. >> i think getting a fourth in there, with the distance we may need from the street lights could be pushing it a little bit, and i would just rather be as conservative in our kind of decision conditioning as possible. >> and in their brief, it said similar to the trees that were being removed, you recommended 36 or 48. so if the trees that are there, if you had to guesstimate a size, are they closer to 36 or are they closer to 48. >> they are closer to 48. it is a relatively wide sidewalk, so the distance from the building would be adequate, it's just a matter of what
12:53 pm
other utilities crop up. >> and generally for some of the not so good people, we mandate 48, but 48 is a lot more work, as i know, and these people have been stewards for the district and for the thing, maybe not to -- because that requires a crane, that requires a lot of stuff. could you refresh my memory the difference between a 36 and a 48 as far as growth. >> they are -- there's not a great distance -- a great difference between those -- between those sizes. the 36 inch, it still requires a lot of work. a small kind of knuckle boom or knuckle flatbed to move those trees into place. so a 36 would still require that, but it's true, it wouldn't be as onerous as a 48-inch box. the knock against the 48, and the reason why i went in saying, suggesting, leaning towards a 36 is even just the distance towards the ush can, just trying to wedge that in
12:54 pm
towards the curb starts to be a little challenging. if there's additional utility lines going in, it's going to get a little tight. so 36, based on the reality of an urban setting, it is probably more realistic. >> okay. thank you. mr. vice president? >> thank you, mr. buck. i agree with your position totally. my question relates to something that was in the brief, and i'd like to know it for future reference as well as reference on this. there was a -- there was a mention in the brief that there's been significant problems -- significant is my word. i don't know if that word's in there -- in the tenderloin in establishing new plantings, and that's the thing that caught my attention, that even with the best intentions, you're either going to kill trees one way or you're going to kill them the other. can you -- is it -- is it
12:55 pm
street behavior and nuisance -- human being nuisance or is it the environment that prevents or -- or inhibits the development of new street plantings in the tenderloin? >> correct. thank you, commissioner. it's -- it's really the human element. the -- the street trees that we plant in san francisco, many of them are already industrial strength. you know, they don't mind various human activities, whether it's dog, human, whatever animal that's out there, but it tends to be vandalism. there are some things that can be done to protect new street trees. we have gone from using three poles or stakes surrounding trees to four, gone from 2 inch diameter to 3 inch diameter, adding a protective screen
12:56 pm
around those. really, it's the first couple of years to get them big enough, out of harm's way, and once they're big enough where they don't seem vulnerable -- we have the same issues in the marina. anyone who starts their day doesn't think hey, i'm going to tackle a tree when i leave the bar, but bars and trees in close proximity, it doesn't matter what neighborhood. >> do people do that? >> so it's a real challenge. but the tenderloin places a lot of that type of activity in just a higher concentration. and that was one -- i mean, looking at their brief, it's why would we ever deny this, right, at the departmental level? it felt like that. but a lot of it is difficulty in establishing trees, and really, it's just making sure that we've made everyone do their due diligence. when we receive a brief like this, it makes it a lot easier. sometimes, we don't, and it -- you know, it makes it a little bit stronger. but again, we have a community partner here that's pretty much
12:57 pm
checked all the boxes with integrity, not just for window dressing. so it's a human element, but i think with enough planning and using protective equipment, we can get -- see those trees get established. >> thanks. and this would seem to be a center point in their new campus development as we saw in the master plan, and i would -- i would assume that if a tree had a chance, it would be one of these trees because there will be security to protect not only from the human element -- the trees from the human element but probably the human beings from the tree element as well. >> that's correct. it's going to be a well-lit facility. there'll be people that care there in that immediate vicinity, and that really helps. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president fong: was this
12:58 pm
brief provided to the hearing officer? >> you know, i would say -- i would say it's modified. i wasn't part of the departmental hearing, and honestly, i -- for some reason, i've got about eight appeals floating. i thought there was a jurisdictional request a couple weeks ago before i went on vacation, and so i was only looking at it a couple days ago, so i wasn't able to go back and see what it was taking over from at the departmental hearing. we do have a number of different hearing officers, and obviously we have a director that oversees those recommendations, but it is something that we -- and i ran it by our superintendent prior to that decision being made, that, you know, the emphasis is really protect street trees when we can. i think if these trees were
12:59 pm
larger, we'd probably continue in our advocacy to protect them, but their relatively small size does make the case, and we need to acknowledge that and move on, so i think that's part of that. >> president fong: okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please approach. [please stand by]
1:00 pm